topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[Luke]

I think a combo of size and the fact that most collectors don't ever get interested in non-Topps/Bowman sets. The fact that I still see people calling 1948 Bowman Feller's RC tells me a lot about people's appetite for "oddball" cards. I agree with you about Exhibits, they are awesome. I beleive they are the first baseball cards ever sold (rather than given out as advertising pieces or prizes). Feels like that should give them a ton of hobby cred, but it doesn't seem to.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Luke

I think a combo of size and the fact that most collectors don't ever get interested in non-Topps/Bowman sets. The fact that I still see people calling 1948 Bowman Feller's RC tells me a lot about people's appetite for "oddball" cards. I agree with you about Exhibits, they are awesome. I beleive they are the first baseball cards ever sold (rather than given out as advertising pieces or prizes). Feels like that should give them a ton of hobby cred, but it doesn't seem to.

wow luke - we are on the same page. i think more about history in general so to me it seems like the set seems like a no brainer. that's a really powerful statement about the exhibits being the first ever sold. would love to hear you speak more about this if you ever wrote or considered writing an essay on them/this topic.

cheers; great to hear your opinion on this. we are totally in agreement!!

[obcbobd]

I love them and agree that the size issue affects their popularity. The 1921 Ruth is one of my favorite cards. The other reason, especially for set collectors is that for most years are not dated. Cards issued 1947-66 are grouped into a single set, at least according to my old vintage catalog. An extreme eample is the Ted Williams (9 showing), a great card. It's listed in the catalog as a 39-46 Salutation Exhibit, but I've heard it was produced well into the 1960s.

This site does give information on dating Exhibit cards https://keymancollectibles.com/exhibitdatechart.htm

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

I love them and agree that the size issue affects their popularity. The 1921 Ruth is one of my favorite cards. The other reason, especially for set collectors is that for most years are not dated. Cards issued 1947-66 are grouped into a single set, at least according to my old vintage catalog. An extreme eample is the Ted Williams (9 showing), a great card. It's listed in the catalog as a 39-46 Salutation Exhibit, but I've heard it was produced well into the 1960s.

This site does give information on dating Exhibit cards https://keymancollectibles.com/exhibitdatechart.htm

that site is awesome. they're really powerful history. i agree, i think there's a bit of a barrier to entry for some because of how the dating functions!

[hcv123]

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

howard!! i don't know if you remember but we talked a long time at the chantilly show. my name is david + was there with my dad. late 20s early 30s, tall, shaved head. we got into a super spirited discussion about proofs and you showed some of the really beautiful and awesome stuff you had in terms of RGBY proofing of a 60s set.

i am 1000% in agreement with you. i approach things from the perspective of a historian/more of a philosophical angle, so a lot of 'card market' stuff so to speak doesn't make any sense to me. the images on those early exhibits, particularly the 21s and definitely including some of if not all of the big HOF/star level poses in the 39-46 are just wonderful. some of them have such deep clarity, print quality, and chiaroscuro of light and darkness; the mays nyg seated in the 47-66 set, if properly researched for date of print, is a rookie card directly aligned to his first year of play. its a really profound set and an essential part of american and baseball history to me. its a shame it doesn't get its due!!

my best; hoping to see you again at the next chantilly show come the summer.
david

[jbsports33]

I have never understood this and most likely it has to due with size, like others have mentioned and there is lack of color. They are great to collect and there are more options then most understand - and the 1920s and 30s ones are so cool. I have had many in the past and current, some of my largest purchases and sales have been exhibit cards. Also - there are great sets in non sports, boxing and wrestling not just baseball. Keep your eyes out for 4 panel versions, as you can have more than one Hall of Famer on one card. Happy collecting! Jimmy

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by jbsports33

I have never understood this and most likely it has to due with size, like others have mentioned and there is lack of color. They are great to collect and there are more options then most understand - and the 1920s and 30s ones are so cool. I have had many in the past and current, some of my largest purchases and sales have been exhibit cards. Also - there are great sets in non sports, boxing and wrestling not just baseball. Keep your eyes out four panel versions, as you can have more than one Hall of Famer on one card. Happy collecting! Jimmy

thanks jimmy! this is an awesome comment. if you ever have any 20s ones for sale particularly the 1921s i would love to chat.

you sound like an expert on these! would love to connect in pms and discuss further anytime. it sounds like we have a mutual appreciation for these wonderful artifacts of american history.

[jbsports33]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

thanks jimmy! this is an awesome comment. if you ever have any 20s ones for sale particularly the 1921s i would love to chat.

you sound like an expert on these! would love to connect in pms and discuss further anytime. it sounds like we have a mutual appreciation for these wonderful artifacts of american history.

The last few years I have sold out of the 1920s exhibits, had a larger collection and for about 2 years and sold most of them. Including Ruth, Cobb and many other stars. I will keep my eyes open for more, I really love the colored post card versions myself. Thanks!

[Rich Klein]

Size and also some of the most popular players are also printed to the moon (so to speak)

IIRC, The Ted Williams Exhibit was still available until his career completed in 1960 meaning there are a LOT of them in the wild.

But, on the plus side, if you paid attention to Lucky Larry's posts with pictures on Exhibit Variations, doing a master set of Exhibits is a real fun challenge. I enjoyed going through the COMC data base and separating those cards

Rich

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Size and also some of the most popular players are also printed to the moon (so to speak)

IIRC, The Ted Williams Exhibit was still available until his career completed in 1960 meaning there are a LOT of them in the wild.

But, on the plus side, if you paid attention to Lucky Larry's posts with pictures on Exhibit Variations, doing a master set of Exhibits is a real fun challenge. I enjoyed going through the COMC data base and separating those cards

Rich

rich -- i do think there is an essential caveat here which is that different dates of printing are identifiable with research. the williams exhibit can be identified and closely time stamped based on several essential attributes on the card itself. its quite fun detective work with these cards!

they're a great time; i hear you on scarcity. i personally think when there's more of a card, its actually more meaningful in terms of democratic circulation, particularly on very period specific pieces like these. the 39s-46s in particular of crucial players/poses/depictions.

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

Hi howard agreed i just picked up a mikan and it was not cheap..i love them..

[Touch'EmAll]

Exhibits have that classic look to them - great pictures. And love the size, big but not too big.

Much of the 1920's Exhibits are unique to just a single year only.

Speaking of big, what other cards are oversized - T3's I think are even bigger than Exhibits. 1970 Basketball, 1976 Basketball are both larger than life. So many Team Issue & Picture Pack/Photo Pack cards are large size.

What about undersized cards. T206 is really darn small, would they be better if larger? Others?

[akleinb611]

Adam, thanks for chiming in. I last checked on this thread early yesterday and felt I would have to say something if you didn't.

And by the way, that Julie Newmar card is a short and convincing response to the question of why life is worth living...

On a less philosophical note, I wrote an article on exhibits for Frank Barning's Baseball Hobby News about forty years ago, and collectors were having precisely the same debate then. Size may be part of the issue (but, as has already been pointed out, where does that leave Turkey Reds?), but the real problem lies in the lack of a good checklist. The 1947-1966 list found in modern price guides is little more than an information dump. Collectors are uneasy if they can't precisely figure out the year of a card, or how many are left in order to complete the set.

Elwood Scharf chronicled the postwar Exhibit baseball set in the pages of The Trader Speaks in the late Seventies, and I would have thought that his observations would have been picked up by the price guides. But they haven't been. Adam, you've done your part, but the understanding of this series just hasn't hit the mainstream. And yes, the fact that a popular player like Williams or DiMaggio was reissued for years does dampen some people's enthusiasm. But that's the reality; there's nothing we can do about that.

I got enthused about Exhibits in the late 1970's when they could be had at card shows for twenty five cents in mint condition, Hall of Famers for fifty cents, and Mantle/DiMaggio/Williams for a buck each. Now that's incentive!

It really comes down to how willing you are to collect blind. Me, I also collect the Exhibit movie star issues of the 1910's to the 1960's. There are so many cards, known and unknown, that it makes my brain hurt. A checklist? Are you kidding?

[Brent G.]

Can anyone from the "it's not a card" opinion define the exact measurement range of what a "card" is? I think these are considerably smaller than say 1985 Topps Super "cards." And Old Judge and many others have blank backs -- we don't have an issue calling them "cards."

These are amazing pieces of photo art -- whatever you wanna call them!